Friday, March 28, 2014

Christopher Monckton forgets about the sun then greets the men in white coats

One of the most-used denier myths about the cause of global warming has been "it's the sun". It's still number two on the SkepticalScience.com list. You'll be surprised to find that at WUWT, Christopher Monckton is now ignoring the sun's role in keeping Earth warm.

First there's CO2

Yesterday's article (archived here) is a bit of pseudo-science, in which Christopher fudges some numbers that he claims came from an older IPCC report (from 2007) and proclaims that:

Broadly speaking, the IPCC expects this century’s warming to be equivalent to that from a doubling of CO2 concentration. In that event, 1 Cº is indeed all the warming we should expect from a CO2 doubling. And is that going to be a problem

I don't know if he's talking about an additional one degree rise this century or if he's arguing there will only be another 0.2 degree rise this century. If the former, many scientists would disagree. If we continue with business as usual we'll probably be in for at least two degrees of warming by 2100, so that would mean another 1.2 degrees this century. That's being optimistic. It could be four degrees.

The thing is, with only 0.9 degree rise in the temperature in Australia we're seeing events never before recorded, like the unreal summer of 2009 in south eastern Australia, our Angry Summer of 2012-13, our hottest year ever plus this past year, catastrophic fires and floods all over the nation at once - so much so it dropped the global sea level. Another one degree and our summers will be monstrous. A four degree rise would be beyond monstrous.

What about the sun?

Mr Tyler asks whether there were earlier periods when CO2 concentrations were higher than today and the weather was colder. The best example of many is the Neorproterozoic (sic) era, 750 million years ago, when I was young. At that time there was at least 30% CO2 in the atmosphere, compared with 0.04% today, and yet glaciers came and went, at the equator, twice. It is fascinating watching true-believing paleoclimatologists trying to explain that one away. They usually do it by saying that the CO2 concentration must have been much more variable than it was. But we know it was at least 30%, for otherwise the dolomitic limestones could not have precipitated out of the oceans.

Thing is that there were a lot of things different about the the Neoproterozoic world. Days were shorter, the moon was closer, land masses were organised differently and, most particularly for climate, the sun was fainter. We're talking about a period spanning from around 1,000,000,000 years ago to 540,000,000 years ago. Before there was much life on Earth at all. Some organisms appeared over that time - mostly in the water of course. There were no plants on land so silicate weathering, an important part of the long term carbon cycle, would have been less efficient than now.

The Neoproterozoic is a time of transition between the ancient microbial world and the Phanerozoic, marked by a resumption of extreme carbon isotope fluctuations and glaciation after a billion-year absence. The carbon cycle disruptions are probably accompanied by changes in the stock of oxidants and connect to glaciations via changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas content. Two of the glaciations reach low latitudes and may have been Snowball events with near-global ice cover....

...Until near the end of the Neoproterozoic, however,much of the Neoproterozoic show played out on the microbial stage and was recorded only dimly in the fossil record. The Neoproterozoic is like a dark tunnel. The ancient microbial world enters the far end, endures the biogeochemical and climatic turbulence of the Neoproterozoic, and comes out into the light of the metazoan-rich Phanerozoic world on the other side.

The paper is fairly easy to read at the beginning. (It gets technical further in.) In regard to carbon dioxide and climate, this is some of what was written:

The Neoproterozoic glaciations provide the main indication of climate variability, but apart from that and the broad inferences that can be drawn from survival of various forms of marine life, there are no proxies to tell us how hot it may have been between glaciations.

Christopher Monckton seems a lot more sure of himself than are scientists, when he talks about the Neoproterozoic. He's convinced that "there was at least 30% CO2 in the atmosphere, compared with 0.04% today, and yet glaciers came and went, at the equator, twice" - implying that CO2 levels didn't change in 460 million years or so. Given how CO2 has increased by 40% in the blink of an eye since industrialisation, that seems a strange position for him to take. Not so strange when you know something of the potty peer I suppose.

The paper states that the "absorbed solar radiation averaged over Earth’s surface would have been approximately 14Wm-2 less than it is at present". Therefore, to keep the temperature the same as today, there would have had to be around 12 times as much CO2 as there was prior to industrialisation. That is, around 3,360 ppmv - with perhaps some CH4 substitution. However in the non-glacial periods of the Neoproterozoic, it was probably warmer than the Ordovician, with higher levels of CO2 than 3,360 ppmv.

What about the glacial periods? It's likely or at least possible that there were two periods in the Neoproterozoic era during which Earth probably or possibly had snowball earth events. That is, most of the oceans froze over. What would have caused that to happen would be a large reduction in CO2. And to come out of the snowball earth would have taken probably an even greater rise in CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

The paper I referred to discusses how δ13C had enormous fluctuations during the Neoproterozoic and puts forward potential mechanisms for this. If, like me, you're not all that familiar with these topics, then you might find you need to concentrate. I won't attempt to distil the information here at HotWhopper. I've learnt a lot more than I knew before reading the paper but my knowledge of the subject is way less than the authors (and probably less than many HW readers). One little fact I can impart - the enormous shifts in global temperatures during the 460 million years or so of the Neoproterozoic era had much to do with greenhouse gases.

The point is that Christopher Monckton doesn't have much of a clue when it comes to climate science. Whether it's science of the present day climate or that of a thousand million years ago. And given how deniers love to claim "it's the sun", it's ironic that Christopher ignores the sun when he talks about climates of the deep past, arguing as if the world back then was in the same situation as it is today. It was different in so many ways.

From the WUWT comments

A swag of comments - here are some for you to enjoy - or whatever.

Martin A says:

March 26, 2014 at 7:31 am
I’d like to thank the quaintly named Monckton of Brenchley for his kind reply (3:05 am) to my comment and my question.

The quaintly named Monckton of Brenchley goes some small way to redeeming himself (extract):

March 26, 2014 at 8:01 am
...Mr Kelly says that because CO2 concentration change lags temperature change by an average of 800 years the overall temperature feedback gain factor must be zero. Mr Haynie makes a similar point. However, theirs is a common misconception. Though it is clear on paleoclimate timescales that it is temperature that changed first and CO2 concentration change that followed, the CO2 concentration change was – and is – capable of reinforcing and amplifying the temperature change.

KevinK isn't buying the idea and says:

March 26, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Go on, pull my other leg while you are at it. That is not only a bad example of circular logic it isn’t even a good example of mobius strip logic.

So to state it another way; temperature drives CO2 levels AND CO2 levels drive temperature, UM KAY….. If you say so.

Surely you are joking….. (Ok, apparently you are serious and I’ll refrain from calling you Shirley).

It has to be ONE or the OTHER, not BOTH.

CO2 levels could conceivably affect the response time of the gases in the atmosphere (causing them to warm/cool more quickly after sunrise, for example), but they cannot be controlled by AND ALSO control the average temperature.

How, one would reasonably ask, can this mythical molecule (CO2) know when to “obey” the temperature and when to “command” the temperature ?????

Your logic would lead to a runaway train…….

Cheers, Kevin.

highflight56433 says:

March 26, 2014 at 9:14 am
I cannot buy into CO2 warming a H2O system as it (the CO2) would dilute molecule for molecule any concentration of H2O vapor, resulting in a cooling response as CO2 is less a heat absorbent than water. The cooling would then dry the atmosphere causing even further cooling. How many time do we have to look at the ice cores to verify an increase in CO2 cools the planet? And then there is the fact that it is the surface that warms the atmosphere, so first there must be warmer temps on the surface to increase air temperature. All being equal, less concentration of H2O is a cooler atmosphere.

GogogoStopSTOP (as Bernard) said he was having a problem viewing WUWT and wondered if it was the site or him, to which Anthony replied in a somewhat condescending manner. GogogoStopSTOP wasn't impressed and says:

March 26, 2014 at 9:57 am
Well pardon me Anthony! The last time I spoke with you personally, it was at the Heartland meeting in DC a few years ago. You seemed like such a pleasant, knowledgeable gentleman.
I’ve followed your blog for years. I have an Apple Macbook pro, running Mac OS X 10.7.5…

Thanks for the advice, but it’s a little unbecoming of you, as was, probably, my asking if there was something affecting your operation more broadly.

Christopher greets the men in white coats

Let's finish up with one of Christopher's incomprehensible ravings as he toddles off to greet the men in white coats. The quaintly named Monckton of Brenchley says (excerpt):

March 26, 2014 at 3:56 pm:
As it becomes ever more apparent to all that the claims of the totalitarian Left about the climate are in all material respects exaggerated, people will perhaps look more closely at the habit of routine and egregious mendacity that is a consequence of the enormous campaign of disinformation by a million agents of Soviet propaganda, that infected our media, our academe and our other institutions for decades. Though the evil empire that promoted that viciouscampaign of lies was eventually flung into oblivion, today’s hard Left, having learned how to dissemble on the grand scale, have now largely lost the ability to tell the difference between that which is true and that which is not. To them, as to the Soviets who trained them so well and often without their knowledge, it is not the truth but the Party Line that matters. On the climate, the Party Line is now being daily demonstrated to have been in substance false. As more and more people come to realize this, they will begin to question everything they are told by the left/Green inheritors of the Communist/fascist mantle, and the world will be a merrier place for that.

35 comments:

You claim in your criticism of the Monckton article,citing a paper by Raymond Pierrehumbert et al, that;

"The paper is fairly easy to read at the beginning.(It gets technical further in.) In regard to carbon dioxide and climate, this is some of what was written:

The Neoproterozoic glaciations provide themain indication of climate variability, butapart from that and the broad inferences that can be drawn from survival of various forms of marine life, there are no proxies to tell us how hot it may have been between glaciations."

Where in that excerpt is carbon dioxide mentioned?

You have made the fundamental error in, a ratherFreudian fashion, assuming that carbon dioxide and temperature are directly related. You surmisethat if carbon dioxide rises then temperature will also rise. So then you also assume that the reversemust be true, and that if temperature rose, then carbon dioxide must have risen also, due to the direct correlation between the two.

This is a relationship which is not proven to exist,except that experimentally in a laboratory, in theconfines of a bell jar or similar, some measurableeffect can be seen to exist. However in the real atmosphere there is actually no empirical evidencefor such heavy influence as is implied in your article.

All such predictions and "measurements" of thissupposed crucial effect are mere extrapolationsfrom computer modelling of parts of the atmosphere.

I read Sou's article also and the explanation is given in the bit just above that you seem to either have immediately forgotten or did not understand how it connects:

Its the bit (my italics) that goes:

"The Neoproterozoic is a time of transition between the ancient microbial world and the Phanerozoic, marked by a resumption of extreme carbon isotope fluctuations and glaciation after a billion-year absence. "

Oh dear so you decide that, and using arcane Irish vernacular, that to call a commenter the equivalent of "stupid, irritating or ridiculous", offering no contrary arguments, will suffice for an intelligent and sufficient reposte ?

I might suggest that tou read some of the materials on the website linked to J Black's name, where though they don't necessarily agree with all he said, or indeed what you or Sou have written, certainly there ARE alternative points of view. Your insulting name calling adds nothing to the sum total of knowledge i this debate.

Acid Oceans, Osteoporosis of the Sea, and the CO2 Monsterhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYbIdJBHAfk

is a video by Willie Soon, and he says the Sunis to blame for Global Warming and not CO2.

..... and yes I heard all the arguments about Koch brothers and Big Oil and all that, I just don't think that's relevant at all. Look at the evidence, and if it is real, then it didn't matter who said it really. But if the evidence isn't real, then even a former USA Vice President can't make it true.

I may humbly point out that you "guthrie" have just demonstrate the point "McTaggart" has been making. You say "full of lies, propaganda and anti-science.", but you no provide any contra argument. A name calling is not a valid argument.

"I might suggest that tou read some of the materials on the website linked to J Black's name...."

On the other hand I could go to the website of any number of prestigious scientific societies, or scientists publishing in prestigious scientific journals. Do feel free to remind me again when J Black receives his inevitable Nobel prize in response to the clamour of a grateful and adoring world.

Monckton gets his shonky proterozoic musings from Ian Plimer in his error-riddled book "Heaven and Earth", who misunderstood/willfully misinterpreted Jim Walker's paper on snowball earth and the carbon cycle . Evideince for dolomitisation exists directly after snowball earth, where previously glacial deposits were forming. Follow this link for some photos of "before and after" http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2010/03/omans-view-of-the-snowball-earth/

The main barrow that this pack of scoundrels push is "CO2 is plant food" - from what I've read. That family earns its crust from science denial. They are one of the sources for CEI, Heartland and other infamous lobby groups - as discussed here.

I see that Millicent answered your question: "Where in that excerpt is carbon dioxide mentioned?". However I'm not sure why you asked it.

Why should there be a mention of CO2 in that particular quote? I included that quote to illustrate that it's difficult for scientific researchers themselves to work out everything that happened 540 to 1000 million years ago. Christopher Monckton acts as if he is so certain - even though he's never done *any* scientific research, let alone climate research of the Neoproterozoic era.

I mentioned CO2 several times and how the scientists point to greenhouse gases being behind the massive fluctuations of temperature over the 460 million years of the Neoproterozoic. My article consists of more than a single quotation.

In case there is a reader who is new to climate science, J Black or whatever his name is, is of course quite wrong when he talks about CO2. There are any number of ways that you can demonstrate why it continues to act as a greenhouse gas and hasn't suddenly stopped obeying the laws of physics (which Black/McTaggart/Lee seems to think has happened for some weird reason known only to himself).

The sock puppet wrote"All such predictions and "measurements" of this supposed crucial effect are mere extrapolations from computer modelling of parts of the atmosphere."

Notice how he put measurements in scare quotes, like they don't exist. Pitiful.

And then he wrote "This is a relationship which is not proven to exist".

Um sorry, but there is plenty of supporting evidence, beginning with the observations by Tyndall, which observed directly the heat trapping properties of CO2 in 1859, and the observations by Langley who observed the heat trapping properties of CO2 in the atmosphere during the 1890's, later confirmed by satellites.

Then you have the measurements of isotopes of carbon and oxygen of rocks formed during the PETM.

Many moons ago I had Plimer as a lecturer in undergraduate Geology (coal geology, IIRC) and being the curmudgeon he was even back then there's no way that he would have allowed his students to pass the course if they'd produced a clanging blanket statement such as that... although some would say that looking good in a dress may have mitigated against a strike.

I don't think that Monckton would look good in a dress so that can't be the explanation.

GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red). The abrupt negative excursions in total net forcing are the result of volcanic eruptions (negative forcing by stratospheric aerosols).

* * *

and yes I heard all the arguments about Koch brothers and Big Oil and all that, I just don't think that's relevant at all.

Of course it's relevant. Surely you cannot be so naive?

Willie Soon is a shill, Anon. This is a matter of fact, and you should be aware of it since it bears directly on how much trust you should place in what he tells you. Please read the link provided by Millicent above.

Hint: while biogeochemical carbon sinks are largely disabled by global glaciation (including a substantially or completely frozen ocean), volcanism doesn't stop. How might this affect the atmospheric composition over several million years?

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)